Friends, Nebraskans, Countrymen...Finals means War!
To Sir Todd and Sir Kelly/Jell-o,
As I get prepared to lock myself in my office for two weeks staring at outlines and worrying about my future as an attorney, I thought I would take this time to wish all of you best of luck on your finals.. And a Merry Christmas thereafter...
God bless.
And Kelly, try not to set the curve to high in Evidence ok? Please? Just miss a couple for me...Alright? You could have so much fun by being an absolute genius on portions of the exam and then on, like, two questions make up outlandish answers like "Section 666 Subsection Purple of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that the Defendant present otherwise inadmissible evidence in the form of a writing made with a Sharpe Magic Marker on the Outside of a newly ripe yellow chaquita banana; otherwise it will not be considered and he will be deemed to have waived any confrontation clause privileges" -- I double dog dare you...
Just kidding...
Seriously though...Good luck to both of you and Remember that each final you take is one less instance of when you can be assured that someone is reading your legal writing :)
Much Love,
Jon
As I get prepared to lock myself in my office for two weeks staring at outlines and worrying about my future as an attorney, I thought I would take this time to wish all of you best of luck on your finals.. And a Merry Christmas thereafter...
God bless.
And Kelly, try not to set the curve to high in Evidence ok? Please? Just miss a couple for me...Alright? You could have so much fun by being an absolute genius on portions of the exam and then on, like, two questions make up outlandish answers like "Section 666 Subsection Purple of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that the Defendant present otherwise inadmissible evidence in the form of a writing made with a Sharpe Magic Marker on the Outside of a newly ripe yellow chaquita banana; otherwise it will not be considered and he will be deemed to have waived any confrontation clause privileges" -- I double dog dare you...
Just kidding...
Seriously though...Good luck to both of you and Remember that each final you take is one less instance of when you can be assured that someone is reading your legal writing :)
Much Love,
Jon
4 Comments:
Right back atcha!
And . . . the same goes for you as to not setting the curve to high in ConLaw. While I'm struggling to connect the dots come that fateful Wednesday, you'll be gaily banging out mini-decisions which will promptly be forwarded to the Big Nine and surely have them all falling over themselves with glee and saying to each other, "My God, he's SO right, this kid! Why didn't we see it before?"
Thanks, but very unlikely...
I can't even tell Strict Scrutiny, Heightened Intermediate rational basis, and Rational Basis Plus review apart...
I'm screwed..
By the way...It was St. Aquinas who wrote "On Kingship"...Not St. Augustine, It was one of those things I remembered as I was falling asleep and felt like an idiot for saying otherwise...
Ah. Yes, that does make more sense. Thanks for the "erratum".
I think maybe I'll tackle the next half of "Karamasov" this Christmas break since I only got the first half (second time)last year. Or maybe I'll just skip that one for now and try something else. I don't know. I was thinking of reading Breyer's new book, "Living Democracy" wherein he lays out his view of ConLaw.
"I can't even tell Strict Scrutiny, Heightened Intermediate rational basis, and Rational Basis Plus review apart..."
Neither can they.
Oh yeah, and Aquinas is the shiz-nit. I'm sure nobody has ever said that in those exact words before, but it needs to be said. I can do without Augustine and his ultra-realism.
Post a Comment
<< Home